Received: from mail-pz0-f61.google.com ([209.85.210.61]:55882) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RG0Ou-0001GR-HR; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 20:31:45 -0700 Received: by pzk4 with SMTP id 4sf206808pzk.16 for ; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 20:31:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:date:from:to:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:x-pgp-key :x-pgp-keyid:x-cunselcu'a-valsi:user-agent:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=0zOWohW5285PoKODAuLxn8MP0TreKLXYh40LOLmO/MI=; b=baj2jzNmBcCp63WCg4oHrsw6W1kaN+GoUEdF31XZe7kLofLJB+SVAnX3pMjRFnjIrj H111DcFF6uoKAfvsv+zLf2oIolWliq3yknGylnW/u5EBAUwt7k28kRKZkFxaXMU7EMJJ kDWG45xl12p086eagSYQW6EG1g3O1rsWvWTjw= Received: by 10.68.71.167 with SMTP id w7mr191557pbu.15.1318908687872; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 20:31:27 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.68.74.5 with SMTP id p5ls879798pbv.7.gmail; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 20:31:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.38.134 with SMTP id g6mr973264pbk.6.1318908687066; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 20:31:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.38.134 with SMTP id g6mr973263pbk.6.1318908687053; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 20:31:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sdf.lonestar.org (mx.sdf.org. [192.94.73.19]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id r5si1015947pbe.1.2011.10.17.20.31.27 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 17 Oct 2011 20:31:27 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of mbays@sdf.org designates 192.94.73.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=192.94.73.19; Received: from gonzales.homelinux.org (root@sverige.freeshell.org [192.94.73.4]) by sdf.lonestar.org (8.14.5/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p9I3VPcO016603 for ; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 03:31:26 GMT Received: from martin by gonzales.homelinux.org with local (Exim 4.75) (envelope-from ) id 1RG0Oj-0001CO-1A for lojban@googlegroups.com; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 23:31:25 -0400 Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 23:31:25 -0400 From: Martin Bays To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable Message-ID: <20111018033124.GA30548@gonzales> References: <1318202744.44997.YahooMailRC@web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20111013043308.GD3367@gonzales> <4E981179.1030805@gmail.com> <20111014225934.GC3111@gonzales> <4E98D899.7080608@gmail.com> <20111015200404.GB3090@gonzales> <4E9A39C9.3010605@gmail.com> <20111016050503.GA21114@gonzales> <20111016171146.GB21114@gonzales> <4E9B7960.5070006@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="EeQfGwPcQSOJBaQU" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4E9B7960.5070006@gmail.com> X-PGP-Key: http://mbays.freeshell.org/pubkey.asc X-PGP-KeyId: B5FB2CD6 X-cunselcu'a-valsi: budjo User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Original-Sender: mbays@sdf.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of mbays@sdf.org designates 192.94.73.19 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=mbays@sdf.org Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.0 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / --EeQfGwPcQSOJBaQU Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable * Monday, 2011-10-17 at 01:40 +0100 - And Rosta : > Martin Bays, On 16/10/2011 18:11: > > * Sunday, 2011-10-16 at 01:05 -0400 - Martin Bays: > > > >> * Sunday, 2011-10-16 at 02:56 +0100 - And Rosta: > >> > >>> but you'd still be wanting a way of unambiguously showing that > >>> something isn't a kind. There aren't any ready-made candidates for > >>> that, but afaik the lVi gadri are essentially undefined, little used, > >>> and little needed, so you might argue that use for them. > >> > >> That's actually not a bad idea. So {loi cinfo} would be some plurality > >> of actual lions, working like xor{lo} but not allowed to get a kind. > >> Given the plural reference, this isn't even all that far from the > >> historical meaning of lVi. > >> > >> So then I'd understand {lo} as being simply ambiguous between {loi}, > >> {lo'e} and {loi ka}; xorxes would complain that that's almost but not > >> quite accurate, because sometimes the {loi ka} version blocks the > >> others; meanwhile, I would be amazed by his ability to dynamically > >> switch kinds in and out of his domains to make quantified statements > >> make sense - but from a distance, happy in my constantish kindless > >> universe. > >> > >> Sounds good. > > Have you thought about rules for default outer quantifiers and scope > interactions with negation, and so forth? xorlo's seem good: no default outer quantifier; any outer quantifier has domain the referent-set of the description. As for scope - the description gives a Skolem function, which probably gets bound outside all quantifiers. Probably the Skolem function is actually just a constant unless the loi expression contains an unbound variable. Examples with these rules, where GL stands for 'glorked' and acts syntactically like a quantifier: {ro broda loi brode cu brodi} -> GL X:brode(_). FA x:broda(_). brodi(x,X) {ro da loi brode be da cu brodi} -> GL F:brode(_,\1). FA x:broda(_). brodi(x,F(x)) {broda su'o ka loi brode cu brodi ce'u} -> GL X:brode. EX x:(ka[brodi(X,\1)](_)). broda(zo'e,x) > > Some further thoughts on that: > > > > (i) with this definition, {loi} is very close to Chierchia's version of > > the iota operator, which is his explanation of "the": when applied to > > a predicate in a domain, it gives the maximal plurality in the domain > > which satisfies the predicate if there is a unique such (as there is > > with a distributive predicate like a noun). For this to coexist with > > normal quantification, the domain should be some glorked subdomain of > > the full domain. >=20 > Why some glorked subdomain, rather than just the full domain? Having it with the full domain would essentially replicate the functionality of {pi ro broda}. > > So maybe {loi} should actually be defined like that. {loi cinfo} means > > precisely the same thing as "the lions". >=20 > I think "the lions" would mean {lei cinfo}, actually, but that's > a point about English, and doesn't contradict your underlying point. Just making a veridiciality distinction? Or specificity too? > > (ii) Even without this subtle modification of {loi}, I was wrong to > > suggest that {lo} is (essentially) ambiguous just between {loi}, {lo'e} > > and {loi ka} - because the existential resolution of kinds doesn't agree > > with {loi}, as the quantifier should get tightest scope. Rather, > > a fourth item should be added to the list: {pi za'u} (if {pi za'u} is > > our plural existential quantifier, which I think it reasonably could be > > (even though it only really makes good intuitive sense when the domain > > is downwards-closed), such that {pi za'u broda cu brode} means "for some > > plurality X such that broda(X), brode(X)") - where this has to be > > substituted in for the {lo} after all exportation to the prenex. > > > > e.g. {lo cinfo cu zvati ro mi purdi} > > -> {ro da poi purdi zi'e pe mi zo'u pi za'u cinfo cu zvati da} > > =3D=3D FA x:(purdi(x)/\mine(x)) EX X:cinfo(X). zvati(X,x) > > (using capital letters for plural variables) > > (in this case {pi za'u} could be replaced by > > the singular existential {su'o} with no change in meaning, but that > > isn't always true) > > > > Maybe it should be {pi za'u loi broda} instead, which is closer to the > > 'C' approach I was trying for existential cases of unfilled variables; > > I'm not sure. >=20 > This is too complicated for me to grasp at first reading, and > unfortunately I can't afford the time necessary to grasp it. In short: kind predication sometimes resolves to some kind of plural existential quantification with innermost scope (I think xorxes agrees on that, modulo the terminology 'resolves'); I was forgetting this. Martin --EeQfGwPcQSOJBaQU Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk6c8wwACgkQULC7OLX7LNaFowCdF2Kh+ElfKJ4vlpAS6ebUy+/8 L9MAoLLswLr0HCJclKS5tNBkQtrw4xd9 =lm6V -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --EeQfGwPcQSOJBaQU--